 Ieithio weithio ymddangos o'r problemau cyntaf o'r cyfnodd o'r cyfnodd ar gyfer y cyfnodd y prinsio'r cyflwyno. Ieithio weithio ar y cyfnodd y cyfnodd, oedd ymddangos i'r cyfnodd, oedd ymddangos i'r cyfnodd ymddangos i'r cyfnodd yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch o'r cyfnodd ymgyrch o'r cyfnodd ar y cyfnodd. Yn ymgyrch ar cyfnodd, fel y 2002, y Ffnodd Pesedol Cymru, ac i gyflym o'r oeddoedd ymlaen nhw o'r mwyntau. Mae'n hyn o'r mwyntau hyn oedd yn ei gweithio y ffyrdd gwrdd ar gyfer y Llywodraeth Gwyrdain yn ei gweithio'r iawn gan gweithio'r ffyrdd gwrdd. Rwyf ni'n meddwl â'r gwahbodaeth i ddatblygu'r cyffredinol, mae'n gweithio'r cyffredinol cyflwyffol sy'n gyfosedol. Efallai ymgyrch yw'r holl o'r oedd, i gyd wedi'u gwneud o thymiannau o'r ffordd. Rydym nhw'r cyflogol oherwydd wedi'i gael byddai gael cynhyrchu gweld yn rhai ei ddefnyddio. Felly mae'r cynhyrchu yn y Ucau. Felly, yn fawr, ni'n meddwl i gyflogol o fewn. OEI maen nhw'n eich bobl yn ymddangosol ysgolwch yn lleifol. Felly, mae'r cyflogol o fewn o'r environmento oedd yn creu ei ddweud o bair iawn i'r ddweud o bobl o'r oedol. Ymdwe余 yw i'r ffocws i'r gyflym wedi llaw o'r cymryd hyffordd, yn cael emrodd cyflogol, ar gyfer y dywedol maen nhw ar ffordd lluniau unrhyw unrhyw ymgylch. Rhyw yw'r ymdwech ar gyfer unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw yw gwmau ei bod i'r bwysig o'r cymryd yma yn gyfrifoed. Rhaid i'r yn ystod trefious hwnnw o'r cyfrifyth yn arrobarod cyflŵr iawn. Mae ymdweud ymddur ymdill chi i'r ffocws i'r gyflym Gwynch i'r hyfforddiant, OA wedi bod yn cyffredigol y system yn ymddianfod. Mae ymddianfodol wedi cael eu casgliadau amgylcheddiaeth ymddianfodol yn gwybod gyda'u gynghwytoedd o'r hollol. Yn gyfnod Jim Macalco ar OCLC, mae'n ffordd ar y cyfle o gyfnodol cyflwyntaeth ymddianfodol, mae'n gwybod ychydigol o Gymraeg o gyflynyddol i'r cyfle o gyflynyddol. Ofattering has highlighted that the fragmentary network of research systems out there does provide insight into collaborative range of OA activities. However, by viewing OA purely through localised systems, it's a bit like looking through a telescope the wrong way round. We only see things through a very narrow focus. It is hopefully illustrated here. here. The features of open dissemination are now appearing earlier in the published record. Different versions of an output might appear in various forms across the web, each version may exhibit different properties of openness. What's required is the ability to aggregate open activities and then scale them back down to an institutional level. However, UK institutions are currently operating the other way around arguing open access through only a single institutional system. This made and created duplication of effort by academics and layers of bureaucracy that preventent from understanding wider engagement with open practices. Our inability to track academic activity across this range of systems, maybe weakening our policies, the 101 innovations project shows the breadth of new dissemination platforms out there, this is what modern scholarship looks like. ond hi o wybodaeth hwn wedi cyflawni, ond dweud yn cael eu syniad argylcheddoedd o'r system fel ymgyrchweinol. Mae'r unrhyw unigod, ac mae'r ysgledigau yn sylfaenigol o rywbeth fideb, rywbeth ar y gwarach symmetric o'r fitn ac mae'r cyflig iawn, ac mae'r cyflig yn cerddiannol gan angen o'r iawn arlaed yr academics. Mae'n cyfleio hwner bwysigol yn mynd i'r gweithiau hynny. Cors sefydlu'n gallu am ddod gweithio ar three of our papers where to be found in our repository. The majority are widely discoverable, and other, equally suitable repositories. And this data verifies for us, anecdotally, what we already know to be happening, namely that many of our academics are already highly engaged with open practices. Through Cors we are able to see Brunel's research as a global collaboration, but of course these global insights are not reflected in territorial policies. Open Access is a global movement, but with the lack of available data, how can we assess models and approaches to see the best way forward? The broader cultural revolution is being overlooked because policy compliance focuses attention institutionally, and the lack of collectivism for global open access data is obscuring our cultural transition toward open and so obstructing local services that are supposed to be supporting communities through this change. Looking at other web services produced a clearer picture into the state of open through Brinell, so we significantly increased the volume of open access papers than we previously identified. We found about 40% of papers that did not take an available green open access option. The publishing trends of our researchers have changed dramatically. This graph more clearly shows the shift toward gold, particularly in the last five years. What's interesting about this growth is it does not appear to have deterred off scholars from the continued usage of repositories. The lack of available data makes institutional services arbitrous of compliance armed with sticks. The trouble with bludgeoning compliance through policy is the collateral damage that might hit researchers that we've already taken the time to win to the movement. What we need is smarter tools that can incentivise the cultural change and enable a proper dialogue between users and services. Our data indicates that there is far more gold and green publishing taking place outside the visibility of our request driven services. But what we're having to do in supporting compliance is impose workflows that don't recognise a natural and evolving practice often being led by scholars themselves. At our open access conference last year Cameron Nalen pointed out that OA is sometimes felt like libraries chucking books and papers over a wall and hoping the public will come along and pick them up. The duplication of effort we're currently enforcing serves only to take time from the proper public engagement that the movement is supposed to underpin. To be effective we need much better access to data about the manifestations of open works that relate to our institution. How else can local services properly engage, guide and incentivise our researchers? And how will the scholarly community know when we're within sight of our destination? That's the end. Thank you very much.